Natural selection takes place regardless of human interaction. But humans can manipulate it to a degree that maldaptations are irrelevant, depending on which one it is. For instance, if your eyesight is incredibly poor, we can stick glasses on you to help ensure survival. But it does occur, just in a more refined way for humans. Now, whether or not we are actually evolving, meaning that we are changing toward something, many anthropologists debate it. Some feel that we still are, but others feel as if we are stagnant. And of course the reason for that is we are unaffected by the environment for the most part. We have houses, medicine, etc.

I am on the side who suggests we are stagnant. That being said, I think we can add in, if we don't already, any factors we've created ourselves to be part of our environment and act as a replacement for things we've lost (if you were to treat it like a formula).

Evolution is change over time! It does NOT have a goal. Natural selection is the force that imposes limitations on diversity. Today, humans (for most part) are not under natural selection force. This leads to diversity. Diversification IS change over time and, therefore, evolution…

Cat wrote:Today, humans (for most part) are not under natural selection force.

First evolution happens by other means than natural selection like genetic drift, or founding effect/separation of population, which will constrain diversity, although I would say that those do not affect humans.Second, I a m pretty sure we are evolving. Sexual and cultural selection probably affects us (with such factors as skin color) to some extent. And plenty of environmental factors are affecting our health and reproduction whether we realize it or not. Diseases like AIDS, the use of cows milk in diet to cite 2 examples, and many other things can and do affect us. They change us, maybe not a lot, and certainly less and not in the ways than the guy in the other thread think it does, but we evolve, randomly, to somewhere else given enough time

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Cat wrote:Natural selection is the force that imposes limitations on diversity.

If it was, there would be only one species of bacteria and nothing more.

No, Cat is right!Diversity is created freely and randomly by mutations, natural selections, and a few other things will select which mutations will go on the next generation thereby limiting the diversity to what is not only viable, but fit.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

I meant things like genetic drift and founding efect. This is not Natural selection per se as they are not a selective event, just random event that will limit diversity. But of litle interest for the sake of the argument that JackBean was making.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)